Crossglobe

Before dawn

2015-02-15T12:34:00.002+01:00

There is no other way around this wall of fear and anger than non-violence. There is no other option than the most basic principle of love. No more bombs, neither on civilians nor fighters, no more gunning down of anyone—anyone! No more hate speech, kidnappings, rapes, brutality towards children. It must stop. We must demand a moratorium on violence in all its forms. Immediately! Stop the drones, pick the bombers and the tanks apart, help those hurt into the bone and depths of their selves to heal. Every single one of us must accept our responsibility for the well being of every other single individual on this planet. We must reach beyond our deepest fears to hold on to our humanity.

Så kom du då till sista, du var en främling, 
en mytgestalt som jag hört talas om. 
Så många hade målat dina bilder 
men det var bortom bilderna du kom.

We have for too long told ourselves that our behaviour is righteous. That we must fight evil with evil. That brutality is justified—in the name of profit, development, war, or God. We have sold out our innermost Selves for the sake of false securities.

Vi trodde du var användbar, till salu, 
vi skrev ditt namn på våra stridsbanér. 
Vi byggde katedraler högt mot himlen 

men du gick hela tiden längre ner.

For how many centuries have we accepted what no one should ever—ever!—accept? For how long have we refused to listen to the instinct of care and love, which we, as humans are born with? For how much longer will we continue to reject what is our most basic behaviour? We depend not on violence, but on each other. Without Other, Self is nothing, without Self, Other is lost.

Du är ett barn som ligger på ett jordgolv, 
du fryser om vi inte griper in. 

Du rör vid kroppar, hatar orättvisor, 

Du bjuder älskande på moget vin.

The choice is ours. It has always been ours. We are offered the option of a different decision again and again. We need to stop and ask ourselves which choices will lead us in another direction, than the ones we are currently striding with fierce boots.

Du stiger ut ur alla tomma gravar 
Du är en vind som säger: det blir vår. 
Du kommer som en flykting över bergen 
Du följer oss dit ingen annan går.
Du är den sång om livet som jag glömde 
den sanning jag förrådde dag för dag. 
Jag svek mig själv;
den spegel som jag gömde 
bär dina bråddjup, dina anletsdrag.

I believe in the Difference. I refuse to be caught in the maelstrom of hate and fear. I know that we can change this if we wish to, if we dare.

Kom närmare, bli kvar hos mig. 
Det mörknar, och kanske ljusnar det på nytt igen. 
Ditt liv ska bära mig;
jag hör en koltrast som sjunger timmen innan gryningen.

Je suis Ahmed—the revolution betrayed

2015-01-09T20:03:00.002+01:00

This day, as the two before it, is a very sad one. We have witnessed fear and its massive shadows. Eighteen dead. At least two of whom had parents from a former colony, heavily disgraced and violated by its coloniser. After the second imperial war. Most likely all of the killers in this drama have experiences of exclusion, and have most likely grown up with parents who have felt racism into the bone. Whether in France or outside of her. We are all victims. What differentiate us is how we react. Ahmed Merabet, one of the police officers killed in the French drama, was French, with Algerian decent. He was doing his job, as the other police officer who was killed. They had both chosen the French, democratic state, rather than an opposing, globalised resistance group. The woman expressing her fears of 'what's going to happen to France.' The journalists. The cartoonists. I. I am a victim. And an accomplice. We all are. The French Revolution is betrayed. We disgrace the very basic, deepest human rights of of us all: the right to live in dignity. The right to show and experience respect. The French Revolution betrayed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNy4Lli83-I

Children in focus!

2014-10-10T11:18:00.002+02:00

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has made a very interesting choice of laureates this year; Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai. The focus is thus on the child's right to a decent childhood and to education. It is also given to two persons who represent conflictual identities; Indian hindu and Pakistani muslim. Finally, it centres on girls and women's rights to education, in a world where girls and women are discriminated against generally, and particularly in Southern Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh). From a peace and conflict perspective, this year's choice of laureates attends to the central realisation that structural violence leads to direct violence—the exclusion of children, particularly girl children, from social development is obviously part of the conflict scenarios of our times, as well as times gone by.

Read-It!

2014-06-25T15:16:00.002+02:00

I just read Glosswitch comment on "Sex-positive" feminism on New Statesman's website (http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchys-work-it). Guess how Google ad's understood my clicking on that text. I had this ad popping at me: "9 Powerful Words You Can Say That Remind Him Why He Needs You." How ironic!

 The article is very, very interesting and timely! The global gender equality project is but a patriarchal reshuffling of androcentrist interests.

About strong women

2014-04-04T10:35:00.001+02:00

As a teen and young adult I was told that strong women are rather unpopular with young men—a view expressed within a highly heteronormative sexual discourse of course. I have by others been defined as 'a strong woman' since before I was legally a woman. I am still unsure whether the comments I received were affirmative or of the more raised finger/warning kind. What I experienced seemed both to confirm and negate the idea of the scare strong women create in men. I tend to believe that the difference between me and those among my friends who were not defined as 'strong' was rather that I was picky. I wanted to decide for myself, not being gracefully chosen by someone. I'm still like that—these days even in my professional life, refusing to go with what the research funders want me to do, instead doing what I want to do. Freedom is essential to my very constitution as a person it seems.

However… I have lately come to think about 'strong women' in a more critical sense. Maybe because of the upsurge in feminist debates, maybe because of tomorrow's Afghan elections. What is, really, a 'strong woman'? Would I say that my friends mentioned above are not strong? Would I say that the women I have interviewed in my research were not strong, or the women reflected in feminist research over the last decades? No, I would not. They are all, all, very strong individuals, making choices based in experiences and norms. The norm tells us—across the globe—that women who openly express a strong, personal will, refusing to be dictated what to do, say or think are dangerous. To men that is, and other (properly behaving) women. They cannot be controlled, or as my dear brother once defined it; 'tamed' (grinning as he decided that I had been 'tamed' by my husband). What's so interesting about this? Well, guys, male counterparts and dearest friends: you are fooled! No woman I have ever met, or heard about has not been strong. The difference is that some women choose to be open (honest?) about their views, wishes, passions, or have a spirited personality that cannot easily be hidden behind a screen of soft, likeable docility and compliance. In patriarchal societies, that is all the societies we actually know of, women playing the game according to the myth of female amenability are often more successful than those refusing to play according to the rules. But they are no less strong!

The world is populated by strong women. And men. Surviving your early childhood will leave you strong. Some are much more open about it than others. That's the diff!

A Feminist Crash Course on International Women’s Day

2014-03-08T19:33:00.002+01:00

Confusion abound. What is feminism? Why do we celebrate a women’s day? Are there any limits to who may claim to be a feminist? The ‘regular Swede in the street’ seems basically to have a very limited idea of what feminism and feminist are. Maybe that’s not so strange though. Most political ideas are not well known or understood generally. How many know anything really about the differences between social liberalism and neo-liberalism? What separates Social Democticism from Socialism, or from National Socialism? How many know that there exists no such thing as a matriarchal society anywhere, that we know of, neither historically nor contemporarily, and that those societies, which are pointed out as matriarchal are actually matrilineal patriarchal societies? How many among those with tertiary education know that feminism is nothing new, or that it is not really one –ism but several?

I have just watched the Swedish Television series of 3 episodes called Fittstim—Min kamp (in translation Pussy Shoal—My Struggle) by a so-called media-feminist of some status in the Stockholm based cultural elite. Then I watched the debate, which was televised directly after the first episode. Now, I watched this on the net, since I don’t really watch tellie as others do (not structured enough to have week long pauses between shows!). It was weird—both the series and the debate. It was so full of no-nothing stuff. It left me with… nothing, really, apart from a very clear understanding that this woman really struggled to understand feminism. Which is really a bit strange since she is a proclaimed (self- and by others) elite feminist. It dawned on me that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. That’s why she needs to get on good terms with the Father figure (Ulf Lundell) she’s stalking with no result through the three episodes. That’s why she picks up on issues of limited importance, while surfing the central stuff. She’s got no idea, but apparently her mother-in-law does have a very clear idea! As has Gudrun Schyman whom she interviews in the first program, and who seems puzzled by the questions from this younger, un-educated and confused woman. She’s a sad figure really. She’s as un-educated when the series end and the debate starts, as she was when she started filming it. Unfortunately, she is not the only un-educated (self-?) proclaimed feminist, not among the general public, nor among the relatively well-educated elite, as became very, very clear during the debate.

Therefore, a crash course:

1) The common denominator of feminisms is the normative strive for a society in which women and men are considered equally important, and equally respected. There it ends.
2) Thence, fascists can also be feminists. How? Mussolini and Hitler defined women as extremely important to the creation of their envisioned new societies: as mothers and homemakers, of the same importance as breadwinning men-cum-fathers. For the very same reason also religious extremists may consider themselves feminists—as long as women are perceived as equally important as men through filling different but equally important functions in society. If you’re not very right wing this may give you an uneasy feeling of discomfort. The theoretical underpinnings come from Difference Feminism, and Gender Complementarity Theory.
3) The idea of equality between men and women, in the sense of both sexes having the same (often defined as natural) rights and access to the same resources, be it economic, political, social, cultural etc. are basically located in the Liberal Feminist Tradition. The demand for women’s human rights is a long, liberal struggle—Mary Wollstonecraft (Frakenstein’s ‘granny’) was a Liberal Feminist outraged by the decision of throwing women out of the revolutionary French Parliament—while the Suffragette’s and other women’s movements finally won the fight for women’s right to the vote, also a typically Liberal cause. Many of the ‘classical’ or ‘oldies but goodies’ feminists will locate themselves in this category, and generally as researchers they will focus on women and the study of women’s life conditions, circumstances and experiences.
4) On the other end of the left-right political scale we find those who will define women’s struggle for their rights (i.e. liberal heritage) as intertwined with class (and to some extent race) struggles, locally as well as globally. These may be clustered together under the heading Radical Feminism and Socialist Feminism (they will not agree with me in this lumping together however). To clarify a point: if you find any proclaimed feminist stating that men are ‘the enemy’ or that men are by definition to be hated, they tend to be Radical Feminists, but this does not hold for all Radicals! Not at all!
5) Then we have those who may claim to be Gender Feminists, those who are interested in both femininity, masculinity, class, race, sexuality and who will often have Intersectionality as their point of departure, those who tend to focus on the relations of power, on that, which doesn’t fit the general understanding of sameness and difference within and between gendered categories. Those are labelled post-modernist or post-structuralist feminists.
6) And to round off: there are a number of other varieties in-between these very broad categorisations. However, as stated in the first point above: a feminist is someone who strives for a society in which women and men are considered equally important, and equally respected.

Having said this I might add that the Swedish party Feminist Initiative has presented an interesting list of candidates for the EU election (and also for the parliamentary this coming fall), and a highly interesting political agenda! Check it out! (says a post-structural feminist…)

http://feministisktinitiativ.se

Art for Peace

2013-12-15T16:00:00.000+01:00

Last week a Syrian-French artist flew in from Marseilles to Malmö to contribute to the exhibition Syrian Art for Peace, arranged by our Peace and Conflict Programme students. During 12 hours Rohan Houssein painted 'Zenobia is crying'. In the video linked below, the process of painting it is presented and Rohan explains all the symbols making up the painting. Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/FOUm3YXARNs

In Memorandum...

2013-12-09T17:38:00.000+01:00

I used not to be so fond of him. Having read Winnie's autobiography, I kind of lost it somehow. However, what happened after his release from Robben Island turned out to be a changer for me. Few individuals have made such a change, just by being true to their beliefs, values, principles. Such people have no age. They become icons, sources of inspiration, wells of hope.

Rest in peace, but stay with us. We need it so dearly.

THE TIME IS ALWAYS RIPE TO DO RIGHT

Nobel Peace Prize 2013

2013-10-11T11:17:00.002+02:00

Unfortunately, the last years choices by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee have meant that the October announcement is awaited with growing unease by many, myself included.

However, this years Laureate is a very legitimate and highly interesting choice! Congrats to the International Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a historically typical choice of the committee. Focus on disarmament and international cooperation for a more peaceful world. Fully in line with the testament at least!

I would have liked to see Dennis Mukwege though, or Galtung, Lederach or Sharp. The committee has through the years completely forgotten the researchers... which is typical of politicians!

If Syria was Sweden... Part III (see previous below)

2013-09-23T18:11:00.001+02:00

The sudden, and according to many observes completely unexpected developments in Sweden, leads to frantic behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity. Sweden is not a member of any defence organisation, and hence the international community could agree on a concerted and swift international action to calm down the situation. On the other hand the country is also strategically geo-politically placed—i.e. an agreement will be difficult to achieve. Russia, most openly supported by Iran, Iraq, the Vatican, Argentina and the Philippines on the one hand has an interest in a politically weakened Scandinavia, while the USA, France, Germany, Great Britain, South Africa and Turkey are quite clearly interested in keeping the Scandinavian voices strong. Countries like Poland are divided on the issue; Sweden is very popular among the Polish people, but the strong stance on abortion, women’s, and children’s rights are issues over which Poland and Sweden have disagreed openly during the last many years, both in the EU and in the UN. China and India has the same kind of relationship with Sweden, and indeed all of the Nordic Countries, and remain quiet.

The first step discussed is of course to call the various parties to a conference to achieve an immediate ceasefire. This attempt fails almost as quickly as it has been printed down; nobody seems to have a clear idea regarding who the rebellious groups are, really. Clearly, the Home Reserve is involved, and is supported by the Strong Man of Malmö, and lately even his second in line, as well as the Mayors of Gothenburg, the second city of Sweden, and a number of other important, smaller cities around the country. It is also clear that the police are divided (some siding with the rebels, some with the army), and that there have been a number of deserters, leaving the army, the Air Force (some bringing smaller air crafts with them), and marines. There seems, however to be some involvement also of criminal elements with access both to advanced weaponry, money and international semi- and fully criminal networks. The political goals of these last actors are difficult to estimate, while those of the other actors seem to be very readable—either freedom from Stockholm (i.e. a division of Sweden into smaller states), or a continued Swedish state (the British solution supported by Turkey and South Africa), possibly with greater autonomy of the rebellious regions (which is the solution favoured by Norway, Germany and the USA).

Weapons are circulating, as weapons storages have been emptied, and soldiers bringing as much as they can with them when leaving their regiments. Increasingly, the press reports on deadly violence between and against civilians, some attacks seemingly prompted by personal conflicts between individuals or family groups, others based on suspicions of siding with one side or the other.

While many are fleeing to neighbouring or other countries, most Swedes stay within the borders, but deciding to take as much as they can possibly bring, and leaving the areas where fighting is going on. Even Stockholm begins to feel the consequences, as internal refugees come in rather large numbers, for ‘visits’ to family members or friends in the capital city. City planners and local politicians are foreseeing serious over crowding within only a few days amidst the acute violent crisis. At the same time, a number of Stockholm residents decide to leave the city, as they feel an increasing aggression from Mälardal-Swedes, i.e. local to the capital city region, or as they soon start to name themselves, ‘authentic’ or ‘real’ Swedes. Fighting between individuals and groups of people increase in Stockholm, both because of the influx of ‘outsiders’ and because regular Stockholm residents get into fights over what an ‘authentic’ or ‘real’ Swede is exactly, and how many generations deep belonging needs to be to make you authentic.

If Syria was Sweden... Part II (see part I below)

2013-09-23T12:57:00.002+02:00

The local ‘Strong Man’ of Malmö has on many occasions been directly opposing the policies emanating from the National Parliament in Stockholm. The extremely quick development of this volatile situation, has taken most Scanians and Swedes by surprise. He however, claims that this should not be a surprise, as the interests of the army are the same as those of the Government. From his office the local Swedish Television mange to televise his speech against what he calls the ‘Swedish occupation of Scania,’ claiming that this is an offence of the same kind experienced a little more than 300 years ago, asking his fellow Scanians not ‘to bow ever again to Stockholm.’ He says he will himself approach the Home Reserve and participate in the struggle to free Scania once and for all.

Local and national politicians as well as the military seem to be divided—and hence paralysed—on the issue, as P7’s advancement in less than 10 hours have led to road blocks all around Malmö, aggressive searches in particular neighbourhoods and armed clashes between local brigades (Home Reserve, some divisions of the local police and criminal elements joined) and P7’s soldiers patrolling the main streets of the city. It is increasingly apparent that P7 is not isolated in the Swedish army; the Marine and the Air Force have come in to support P7, while other regiments have started preparations for similar situations.

In other Swedish towns and cities people are taking to the streets in angered protests against a government and parliament, which seems to completely have lost all control of the military. The mass protests are not organised, but seem to embrace all kinds of civil society actors, political parties and un-organised civilians joined in outrage. The Prime Minister, in a bid to indicate being in control of the situation, explains the need to keep Malmö calm. Within 24 hours of the siege of Malmö, the army, heavily supported by the Air Force and the Marine, invades Gothenburg, Kalmar, Karlstad, and not least Kiruna.

Rumours spread that the bridge to Copenhagen is about to be closed, and Danes living in southern Scania, as well as an incredible number of Swedes from the southern end of the country pack essentials in their cars, in a frantic move to leave the country. On the eve of the second day of the crisis, the Öresund bridge is packed with cars, the Öresund trains are swamped with people, and since the traffic in the Swedish direction is close to nil, people have started crossing the bridge on foot on the ‘wrong’ side. Similarly, the boats for other Danish cities, including Rönne in Bornholm, are crammed with people wishing to leave Sweden until the crisis is over. Only the ferries across the Baltic Sea, towards southern Finland and Estland do not experience any significant rise in number of passengers. The roads into Norway are also fully packed with people claiming they are off on holiday. Only airports seem to be operating as usual without any disturbances; they are under the control of the army. The number of cancellations is rising however.

If Syria was Sweden... Part I

2013-09-16T10:12:00.000+02:00

I am not in favour of military intervention in Syria. Not at all. There are too much weapons in use, too many fighters on the ground as it is. Need no more—we are in dire need of less rather!

Consider the following situation: conflicting Stockholm-based elites have ruled Sweden for more than 50 years. “Stockholm,” or the “08’s” as they are popularly called in the rest of the country, has tightened the grip on power during the last 10-15 years, to the detriment of the rest of the country. Anger and frustration is reaching a boiling point, particularly in regions with historical experiences of tough rule from Stockholm; Scania, Småland, Blekinge, Halland and the Northern regions, including Herjedalen, Jämtland and the mining city of Kiruna. The response from Stockholm has been less than interested in talks about political change, economic equality between regions and social, cultural and religious freedoms.

There have been plans of arranging marches towards Stockholm from the different main cities around the country, from Malmö, Kalmar, Halmstad, Göteborg, Karlstad, Kiruna. There are historical precedents to this, of which the whole population is aware. Creating Sweden was not done easily over a night—it took centuries of warring regional interests and local leaders. The history of resistance to Stockholm is well known, and some of the stories highly publicised, such as the Dacke feud, the Snapphane rebellion, or the Battle of Lund. In addition, there are myriad local stories of heroes and martyrs having risen to fight “Stockholm” over the centuries all over the country. The resistance is also represented in the capital city itself, which has for three hundred years been a magnet to people from all over the country in search of a future impossible to envision in the area from where people came. There are a number of Swedish descendants around the world, particularly in the USA. Most of them with roots in the regions with the harshest experiences of Stockholm (again Småland, Scania and the Göteborg region is well represented). As the situation in Sweden is seriously deteriorating, they are now being contacted by their long-lost kin in Sweden, being asked to act as lobby groups in their new country.

The rebellion starts in the small village of Revinge, some 40 kilometres north east of Malmö, when a local rebel group, belonging to the Home Reserve, attacks the military camp P7. The Home Reserve in many parts of Scania now decide to side with the Revinge Group, and as the National Army advances on Malmö the Home Reserve groups gather in the city to protect it from the Army. In Malmö itself, local criminal gangs side with the Home Reserve rebels, forming a number of support groups of their own, based on different allegiances between them.

Just a little reminder of what it's all about...

2012-11-20T09:54:00.000+01:00

http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html

22 July

2012-07-22T21:02:00.001+02:00

July 22 2011. With the kids at the public pool. Listening to the unbelievable unfolding in Oslo, then confused messages of shootings at a summer camp outside Oslo. How easily violence explodes security... The central paradox of democracy dismantled, through the killing of future politicians, actors of consolidation rather than change; the security you feel, the safety enjoyed, when being in a position, to take non-violent re/actions for granted. At some point democracy means that you forget that this is not necessarily something you should expect to take for granted—it gets dusty, not valued, no longer perceived as the most central aspect of being able to practice democracy. Only through the momentary and complete loss of security and safety are we reminded of the vulnerability of non-violent democracy. The every-day dustyness of democratic security and safety allows the hubris of extremism, allows distance to grow between people, allows isolation and exclusion to increase. We are all part of the crime, in different ways, unless we actively decide to practice democracy in our everyday encounters with each other—only if we constantly act to increase each others and our own security and safety, through the complete, unreserved and unconditional respect for every one will we be able to defend non-violent democratic values.

Traveling the times of violence

2012-06-25T23:21:00.000+02:00

We have just watched yet another episode of the Time Team, one of our all time favourite TV shows. They were excavating a hilltop bronze age community with heavy defence works surrounding it, north of Belfast. Laying in the sofa watching the dark clouds travelling the stormy skies afterwards, waiting for the young one to fall asleep, I cannot help thinking of the disturbing question raised in the programme, and the shadows it throws over the last ten thousand years of human history. Why was such defence works necessary? Thomas Hobbes grins at me through the growing darkness of the falling summer night’s hurling rain. Just how peculiar are our present times at this particular spot on earth? The fact that I do not need to live behind bars, that my children can go to the park and play without guards or even adult company, that friends look a bit questioning at me when I say I don’t let my children go to the baths alone... For how long will this actually still be possible, for how long has it not even been a faint possible fantasy?

I am completely and absolutely convinced that the human being is basically peaceful, but similarly convinced that she was utterly corrupted by the wealth made possible through agricultural accumulation. So corrupted, in-fact, that she needed to build defence works to protect her goods, both produced by her own sweat and tears and the sweat and tears taken by structural or direct violence from others—family, friends or enemies alike.

I look at my children, and I see the vulnerability and sensitivity in them, I see the soft curves of their selves slowly and quite carefully being attempted formed by J and myself—into sensible, wise men choosing talk over knives. I wonder whether that would have been possible in more violent times and places. Have we ever seen less violent societies than those of Scandinavia today—despite the very real structural and direct violence actually happening here—since the Neolithic age? What would you tell me Thomas, would you say: ’Just you wait and see!’ Or would you scratch your beard wondering what you got wrong?

Living the post-patriarchal nightmare?

2012-04-06T17:32:00.002+02:00

I agree—it feels like there's just too much "post" all around us. And now we're even seeing post post'ing, as in post postmodernism (or metamodernism...). I just looked it up, because I thought I need to know for sure there's not a hidden meaning in this prefix. But as I suspected there isn't. It means just plainly that which comes or happens just after something, as in postmodern or postcolonial. Why bother? Because I'm struggling with the women's equality issue. Please note that I'm NOT talking about gender equality. My problem is that it actually doesn't seem to be be about dismantling the patriarchal, but about a patriarchally defined and driven remodeling of what it means to be a women: from housewifery and mothering, to formal work and careering. Hence, what we see at the moment is not at all the freeing of women from home, bed, kitchen, but a kicking of them out in the male world of work, in which family life is perceived of as suffocation rather than as a re-creative part of life. I know I sound like a radical religious voice of opposition. That's not however my point of departure. Let me try and explain this in some more detail.

We talk of the 1960's as the decade of revolutions, and most celebrated is the sexual revolution which has become directly connected to women's liberation (because we got the contraceptive pill freely distributed on the market, in the North as well as in the South—i.e. women could suddenly have sex without fearing pregnancy, consequently they could regulate their fertility without the knowledge of any one else than their physician). This is of course worth celebrating. No two words about that. However, it also liberated men from a sexual-reproductive responsibility, and removed the quite obvious excuse for refusing sex, on the part of women, i.e. that they didn't want sex because they were afraid of (yet another) pregnancy and birth. So, the sexual revolution might be seen as a revolution of men's interests in ready access to the women they have a relationship with. The major problem here is not the pill—it is about interests. The discourse surrounding modern (and postmodern!) sex is that it is always nice, however it is practiced as long as those involved consent to it. But what is consent? If anal sex is defined as 'not risky' in whose interests is this? When clean shaved vaginas are defined as OK (as long as you see to it not to get any cuts, or to use particular cleansing products to avoid infections), in whose interests is this defined so?

When you are told to postpone family-making till after you have secured a career, in whose interests is this advise? We may note that in the anglo-saxon tradition this is a particularly patriarchal practice with long and deep roots, not only among the nobility, but also among the working poor (see Jeffrey Weeks). Or , when we are told that prefab food is just as good for us as home cooked meals from fresh produce, in whose interest is it that you buy such prefab stuff?

What kind of society would take the re-generation of us seriously? How would it look like? The focus would not be on working life, it would be on family. It would not be on the "right" to sex, but the gratefulness of being bestowed access to each others secrets. Focus would be on relational stability and mutual respect of interests and wishes. A focus on time as valuable, not in monetary, but in social terms.

What we are living today is not a gender equal dream, but a post-patriarchal nightmare, in which the backlash into old-fashioned patriarchalism is imminent, and in which people who try hard to live as equals are forced on their knees, overburdened by juggling the demands on careering and re-generation.

Om MadMen på svenska

2012-01-27T13:49:00.005+01:00

This was written two years ago as my first reaction to the sitcom. The English comment below is actually a bit later.

Jag tittar på Mad Men... Är det symptomatiskt att en serie av det slaget har skapats och slår igenom just nu? Den är på många sätt extremt olik de serier som annars kör på den globala sit com scenen. Den är långsam, varje tagning får lov att vila hos tittaren, inga snabba klipp, vackert komponerat. Scenerierna är perfekta urklipp ur historien. Min generations historia. Den handlar om femtio- och sextiotalisternas föräldrar. Om det som formade deras liv som unga vuxna, som unga föräldrar, om deras prestationsångest, deras moraliskt tveksamma beteenden i en tid då förr-nu-framtid bröts mot varandra, där preventivmedlen just hade börjat påverka och förändra sättet sexualiteten och därmed parförhållandet, en tid då den unga medelklasskvinnan tog klivet ut i arbetslivet och därmed skapade förutsättningarna för 1990talets globala jämställdhetspolitik, genom kvinnors ökade makt över den egna försörjningen—genom arbete.

Det har ofta sagts att kvinnors kontroll över den egna kroppen, dvs. rätten till en sexualitet (alltså den egna) och rätten att fatta reproduktiva beslut är det helt centrala i kvinnors frigörelse, inte bara i Nord, utan även i Syd. När man tittar på Mad Men kan man frästas att hålla med. Vi uppfattar kanske inte det underliggande meddelandet, i form av skillnaden mellan Don Drapers älskarinnor som personifierar friheten, Betty Draper och hennes livsångest som förstärks av att det flyttar in en frånskild kvinna med barn i ett grannhus—en kvinna som tydligen inte är nedslagen av denna sin tveksamma status—och kvinnorna på kontoret, som spelar och lär ut ’sjuksköterska-läkare’ spelet mycket skickligt. De är moderna, de är fria som kor på grönbete de första vårdagarna—rymlingar. Med mammor som kanske uppmuntrat dem, sätt till att de inte blev intagna hemmafruar liksom dem själva. De fnittrar, över lönerna, över sin egen frigjordhet, männens uppvaktande, sitt eget spel med männen. De erfarna vet att det inte är allvarligt, söker inte kärleken utan bara nöjet, medan den ‘nya’ går fel; hon bryter gångna tiders sextabun, förväxlar klumpig närgångenhet med kärlek, förblir honom ‘trogen’ i sitt flirtande med de övriga manliga kollegorna. Samtidigt sitter hemmafrun Betty fången i sin egen lycka—mannen, hans karriär, huset, barnen—och får kraftiga symptom på depression, utmattning, sammanbrott. Härdsmälta. Medan hon väntar lydigt och dygdigt på att maken skall komma hem efter jobbet eller efter en natt hos ‘älskarinnan’ som är så milslångt ifrån hemmafruidealet man nog kan komma: De är alla sig själva, ser bara till sig själva, är egensinniga, vägrar vara servicemaskiner. De har en relation med Don eller med andra för att de vill det, inte för att de har flirtats omkull.

Genom Mad Men blir det så tydligt att vi fortfarande befinner oss i loopen. Vi är fortfarande inne i den transformationsprocess som påbörjades under andra världskriget. Serien är inte som så många hävdar ett porträtt av 1960talet, det är ett porträtt av oss själva, i 60talskulisser. Vi lutar oss bekvämt tillbaka i TV-soffan och kollar in hur det var, skrattar åt och förfäras över hur människorna då behandlade varandra, och ser inte att vi inte har kommit så värst mycket längre på 50 år. Vi är kvar i samma hjulspår, inte bara vad det gäller genusrelationerna, utan även vad det gäller idealen och förhållandet till konsumtion. Hemmafrun kanske inte finns kvar, men idealet som förknippas med henne är det samma (t ex i inrednings- och renlighetskraven och i mödrandet) samtidigt som man skall ha en karriär, bete sig som en älskarinna, ha välartade och skol-lyckade barn, och en man som håller sig hemmavid och är jämställd. Alla Mad Men kvinnorna samlade i en enda idealkvinna, som dessutom skall vara lycklig, precis som Betty Draper borde vara... Är det konstigt att vi inte klarar av det, att vi drabbas av utmattningsdepressioner?

Serien är som en mardröm. Jag kan inte sova när jag har tittat på en episod, och upplever den som den ultimata skräckfilmen.

A little note on the EuroCrisis

2012-01-27T12:35:00.009+01:00

The following interview with Umberto Eco—one of my absolute favourite writers—was published in The Guardian the other day (thanks Jens Rosbäck for the info). Umberto Eco in The Guardian

I have found that this crisis doesn’t worry me too much. The reason is probably that I have come to the conclusion that there will always be some crisis or another, it will have severe (or not so severe) consequences, but basically we will find a way of solving, maybe not the crisis but the effects of it. It’s like ecosystems; they are not destroyed, they change.

What does worry me however, is that I am not sure whether the politicians trying to solve it have analysed the situation from a historical perspective. If they do, they may realise that it is the second youngest democracies in Europe, which are cracking. This sends us an important message, i.e. that democracy means not only getting rid of a dictator or dictatorial rule, it means also a profound change in how politics is done, and a restructuring of private, local, regional and international economic relations. In other words, if we do not demand true democratisation of new (Eastern European) members of the Union, these will crack too in a few years time. Alas, a new maybe even worse crisis will emerge and be defined as a ‘surprise’.

Overloaded: Work Ethics and the Early Death of a Generation

2010-05-27T22:17:00.002+02:00

I have been defined as sick—with fatigue disorder—since last September. I am slowly on my way back though. How did I get here? To a situation in which I practically collapsed, unable to remember any thing, unable to read, understand recipes, watch television or look at a computer screen? How did I end up prioritizing work more than my family? I do not want to prioritize work, I never decided to. I just ended up doing it, as if by pure accident. Last summer I spent working—my head kept spinning like crazy while my body was on vacation. I have a good boss who sent me to the doctor, who took me off work. Most people are not so lucky.

I was born in the middle of the first generation in the 'developed world' who will probably die at a younger age than their parents, despite life conditions which are presumably better than those of our parental generation. We have not experienced any major wars, our workplaces are generally safer (from an accident-at-work perspective), we have continuos access to better and more varied food (but maybe not as safe from a toxic perspective), giving birth is not dangerous in our (geographical and social) part of the world, we have more leisure time than ever before (apart from some Stone Age societies, see Marshall on that), we need not worry about survival (but we do anyway, because survival has taken on a social rather than a bio-systemic meaning).

Nevertheless, our condition is really questionable. We have not only access to better and more varied food, but also to really bad food, we have ready access to sweets, alcohol and bad fats, which threaten our health quite directly. Our food and environment is contaminated by toxins, it has been genetically modified with the main objective of hyper-production of cheap food, it is produced by extremely un-sustainable methods.

We have much less access to time for relaxation, socializing, exercising, value oriented structuring of our working days, sensible work ethics and eating habits. We are focused on high quality output performance in every little thing we do; at work, when making love, planning families, during pregnancy, parenting, when going on holiday, designing our homes, cleaning them and refurbishing them... Even in our habit of 'prioritizing' soft values and family, and in being relaxed about everything, we are focused on output performance. The bread we bake, the marmalades, jams, cakes and cookies we make and the gardens we grow need to be perfect—in a shabby chick, relaxed and a well orchestrated and planned haphazard-looking way. If we are not burned out by 40 and thereafter having learned how to turn down our demands on ourselves, we will die by 70...

The politics of a cup of afternoon moka...

2010-04-30T23:15:00.013+02:00

Today's big cup of moka

I have been working a tiny little bit on the concept of virtual soil today. I haven't seen anyone else doing anything on a concept in the least close to it. It holds a potential to be really interesting but it needs to be discussed thoroughly with friends. What's the point of a concept like it? It is not the same as, but similar to virtual water. It is similar in that I have initially described it (in the Danish magazine Global økologi/Global ecology from October last year) as a way of thinking about the global flow of nutrients in the same way as virtual water may be exchanged between regions (in an ideal world of course all in accordance with Smith and Ricardo's ideas of free trade and comparative advantages), e.g. in the form of fruits and vegetables.

In short, virtual soil should be understood as the consumption of imported nutrients, i.e. such as one understands virtual water (the consumption of imported water), or in other words the consumption of soil from another region than the one in which you live. However, being so deeply a student of political economy and post-structuralist schools, I cannot help being political about it.

In fact, in my basic conceptualisation virtual soil is a political concept—harbouring the potential to critically discuss both the post-colonial Northern appropriation of land in the South through 'the market'; the geopolitical difference in so called 'ecological footprints'; the impossibility in fulfilling the Millennium Development Goal of poverty eradication by 2015. I also see it holding potential to understand parts of the infected 'land issue' in a country such as Zimbabwe (and the other countries in which this was really a political issue during the 1970's and 80's; Zimbabwe came kind of late and awkward onto that arena), and the effects of global corporate climate compensation policies involving the creation of so called carbon sinks through tree planting in the South.

When I brew my cup of afternoon moka I use espresso roasted coffee beans from—I don't know where—called 'columbia' I think it is, but definitely produced somewhere in the South, most likely South America. Good quality. Today's cup more expensive than usual because it was a 'crema'. OK. Apart from that I used a moka brewer of stainless steel (lots, really lots of water going into producing it, and it was produced in Italy probably with Swedish steel, so that's within my 'region', OK, but its base of copper is probably, let's guess from the Zambian copper belt).

Now, I have by that cup of coffee been drinking not only the water going into growing the bush and the beans, but also a wee bit of South American resources in the form of nutrients from the soil where the coffee grew. As it was regrettably not ecological coffee, I also drank pesti- and other 'cides, while simultaneously also contributing to the pollution of and (hopefully not) degeneration of soil quality in the area where the coffee bushes were grown. I have also supported international companies profiting on my coffee drinking habit. One might argue that at least some money, i.e. resources goes back into the local community—but that's not really true, unless the coffee was fair trade, which it wasn't. The workers get minimal salaries and have few possibilities to move out of their predicament, i.e. no poverty reduction through my afternoon coffee...

In addition, the copper in the brewer's base was we might suggest from Zambia, where people for decades have been forced to work in the mines to be able to pay for the colonisation of their lands as well as, first their hut taxes, then their children's school fees and books, and the few consumer goods they can afford on the very small (bachelor) wages they receive. All this is part of my cup of coffee. I am through it basically appropriating soil purely to satisfy my perceived need for a good tasting kick, soil which might otherwise have been owned by local farmers (ideally; realistically probably by local Big Men) and used for producing 'real' food, not luxury drinks. I am in other words consuming other peoples access to that piece of soil's nutrients through my coffee.

Dancing Boys and masculinity

2010-04-26T10:14:00.020+02:00

The expressions of contempt after the show of the documentary film The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan are many, on the Internet and in regular news media, also in Sweden where the film has not even been announced yet. War Lords' sexual abuse of young boys who have been sold by parents or are street children is the theme of the film. At the same time, the global scale of accusations of sexual abuse by priests within the Catholic Church (which has been discussed for some years) has forced us to start reflecting and debating men, sexuality and religious practices in a more honest manner than before. At least we will do so for some time.

Which are the linkages between the dancing boys in Afghanistan, the boys (and girls) abused within the Catholic Church, the boy lovers of the male Athenian elite or the male sex cult among the Marind-anim? And what is the line we may draw between our husbands/boy friends, Afghan War Lords, the Athenian male elite and the Marind-anim men? Why was it that Aristophanes bold suggestion of a female sex-strike against war did not, and will not work? If we want to stop sexual abuse of children, is it enough just to get all adults to understand how wrong it is (which in itself is a huge task) as suggested by some? Or is the problem quite a different one?

One might throw out the idea that the linkage is (in these particular cases masculine) power, i.e. the subtle power of discourse, practice and tradition, as well as the outright power to force ones will upon others. A power, which is legitimated by symbolic violence, to quote Pierre Bourdieau, involved in acceptance of a situation by the one being subjected as well as the feeling of having the right to subjugate. Our cultures—the Afghan, European, American, Athenian and Marind-animian—are all deeply rooted patriarchies, they are each others brothers and cousins. All, but the Marind-animian have the same origins in time and place. As subtle (as well as overt) power is embodied by all members of society, through discourse, practices and traditions sexuality becomes just one among many arenas through which to express it, whether in relation to other men, in relation to women, or in relation to children. As such the former Swedish parliamentarian Gudrun Schyman was right when she argued that there is not much of a difference between Swedish men and the Taliban.

Power leads to the abuse of children and other collectivities defined as 'weaker', 'lower' or 'less worthy'. In other words it will not help to get women into the picture in Afghanistan, or into the Catholic Church—neither will the abolishment of celibacy which might actually fill quite an important function to some—or the Athenian elites or ending the male sex cult among the Marind-anim. The add-women-and-stir strategy has not worked yet, despite having been tried for quite some time. Had our societies been the opposite, a similar add-men-and-stir strategy would not have worked either. We need to re-organise our societies around the central values of respect of other if we want to get rid of child abuse, or any other kind of abuse. In other words we must root out the Taliban among and within ourselves.

Mad Men

2010-04-25T11:40:00.009+02:00

I received the first season of Mad Men as a birthday present from a good friend. Since I am working only part time I decided to watch the series when I was not working. I have made it through the first five episodes. While being incredibly well made, the series gives me the creeps! It is beautifully filmed and acted, the scenery oozes of the early 1960's, with odours from the 50's sipping through...

While watching, I realise that Mad Men is not at all about the 1960's. The 60's is merely used as the fond against which our contemporary anxieties are displayed. Men's fear of and attraction to independent women and their simultaneous admiration for the 'tamed' Lady. Their difficulty in reading the relational undertext in times of social change is matched by the women's confusion over their own bodily re-actions to the imprisonment by socially defined happiness, or the use of sexuality in the politics of survival in the work place.

The series show us that we are still in the loop—but probably at the end of it, or maybe rather at the end of the first one. The loop take-off was the early pre-revolutionary feminist writings in Europe and the North American Colonies, while the speed slowed during the early and mid-19th century it picked up again during the 20th, particularly during the 1920's, the 1940's and 1960's onwards. Mad Men tells us that while things certainly have changed since 1961-62, we still behave the same way, we still have the same expectations, the same ideals, we are still hunting for perfect-ness of a very particular kind; bought and not-bought at the same time. We are searching for authenticity, and when it cannot be found we go shopping for it.

Love, says one of the characters, does not exist, it was invented by people who want to sell stuff... Or in another phrasing; if you are so numbed by life and circumstance that you have lost touch with yourself, your authenticity, you will need people like the guys in Mad Men to invent it, and money to buy it. On the same account, it seems we find the stability of the very old gender structures guiding the lives of the characters in Mad Men as well as in our contemporary private and working lives, from the US to China, the North Cape to the South...